Black lives matter

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
You're not police, so you're not allowed to use a weapon. Sorry if you don't like that. Maybe you should call the police, instead?

No one is allowed to bash anyone's head. Pretty simple.
So how do you make a citizen's arrest? Put your arms up and ask them to stop!

Do you run them down and tackle them?

How do you do it?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
No straw man at all. The police would have tried to stop him. Your own words.

These guys tried to stop him so he doesn't get away.

They were not trying to shoot him. Your own words.

He rushes at them from a distance away, grabbing the gun, and it goes off.

You just made the case for the defense and have no clue.

Just so you are aware, the narrative is THEY WANTED TO SHOOT HIM AND WENT HUNTING!

Thanks for the input!
That's not my narrative, I have nothing to do with that.

There is no case for the defense, when it comes to manslaughter. They are guilty.

The question will be if the prosecution can get murder charges to stick. That I'm not so sure.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
So how do you make a citizen's arrest? Put your arms up and ask them to stop!

Do you run them down and tackle them?

How do you do it?
You want to prove that guns are required to make a citizen's arrest.

No matter what, they weren't justified in bringing guns with them to make the citizen's arrest. There's nothing you can ever say that will disprove that.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
If it's impossible to make a citizen's arrest without a gun, then they shouldn't be allowed.

Better to let the guy temporarily get away, than to ever have this happen again.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
You seem to believe in predestination. The presence of a legitimate and trained authority would have likely made a difference in the outcome. To doubt this is to say there is no reason to have a police force when random armed citizens could perform the same job as well for free.
Maybe, maybe not? In one of his previous gun convictions Arbery had fled police, injuring two of them.

It's no slam dunk he would have cooperated with police this time either. He was on probation & surely didn't want to go back to jail. While these are all just hypotheticals, it's not a big stretch to suggest he might have fled police again & they could have ended up in a similar situation.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
Goldteam, teach us the correct way to perform a citizen's arrest, since you're the expert! :cool:
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
You want to prove that guns are required to make a citizen's arrest.

No matter what, they weren't justified in bringing guns with them to make the citizen's arrest. There's nothing you can ever say that will disprove that.
You can't make a citizen's arrest on this guy then.

He's not going to stop running.

He's going to punch your brains in if you touch him.

Must be a dumb law.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
Feeling threatened can mean so many different things. If I feel the police were going to hurt me (like beat me up, pin me to the ground), I'm probably not going to go for their gun if it's pointed at me. But if I feel like it's a kill or be killed situation, then yeah I'm probably going to do what I have to.

I'll ask this, what benefit does he have to go after someone that is pointing a gun at him if he doesn't feel he has no other choice? The chances of those actions ending well for him were small.
I agree it became a kill or be killed situation when Arbery attacked McMichael. That's the point. That's what made it self defense.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Goldteam, teach us the correct way to perform a citizen's arrest, since you're the expert! :cool:
You can't!

They can punch you or run at you if feeling threatened. Under no circumstances should one make a citizens arrest. You might scare the suspect.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
You can't make a citizen's arrest on this guy then.

He's not going to stop running.

He's going to punch your brains in if you touch him.

Must be a dumb law.
The law says you must use a gun to perform a citizen's arrest??

Time for you to start answering some questions, instead of always asking them!
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
5,657
Reaction score
922
Points
113
Maybe, maybe not? In one of his previous gun convictions Arbery had fled police, injuring two of them.

It's no slam dunk he would have cooperated with police this time either. He was on probation & surely didn't want to go back to jail. While these are all just hypotheticals, it's not a big stretch to suggest he might have fled police again & they could have ended up in a similar situation.
We agree. What was asserted was a certainty the same thing would happen, and therefore inevitable.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
Following this logic, I have the right to perform armed interrogations of strangers, and if they fight back, I can kill them.
Yes, exactly. If you believe a felony was committed, you have the right to perform a citizen's arrest in many states. Also, in many states you have a right to open carry & to open carry during the citizen's arrest. If that suspect attacks you during the arrest, and tries to take the gun from you, can can fire in self defense.

Frustrated? Outraged? Change the laws! What we shouldn't do, is convict someone of a crime if they didn't break the law.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,796
Reaction score
858
Points
113
It does make me feel good, because it's proven to work and help black people break the cycle of oppression.

A hypothetical "bad apple" example doesn't disprove anything.
No it hasn't, it's done just the opposite. Look at actual data and statistics. Minorities "protected" under affirmative action are not nearly doing as well as groups that are not protected. Instead of lifting groups, it locks them down. I get that you value the emotional response where giving food to a person that's hungry makes you feel better -- the "give a person a fish and they're no longer hungry for a day versus teach a person to fish and they're no longer hungry for life" analogy. You're focused on what makes you feel good, versus what actually does good, which is true for about half the people. Think about it anyways the next time someone asks you an opinion on a policy -- does it do good in the long run?
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Can't answer the question.

Does the law says you must use a gun in order to perform a citizen's arrest? Yes or No
No, it does not.

Must has nothing to do with it.

Does it say you MUST tackle them? No, it does not!

Does it say you MUST hope they stop? No it does not.

Nice Strawman.

I feel you are being bludgeoned here, but that's just me.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
No, it does not.

Must has nothing to do with it.

Does it say you MUST tackle them? No, it does not!

Does it say you MUST hope they stop? No it does not.

Nice Strawman.

I feel you are being bludgeoned here, but that's just me.
Thank you for admitting that they voluntarily brought guns to the citizen's arrest, of their own choice.

Your point is valid, ok? That's for the jury to consider and judge.

You can't prove objectively, one way or another, that a gun is a requirement to perform a citizen's arrest. Maybe the jury will agree with you, that it was reasonable for them to bring them. Maybe not.

My opinion is that it was unreasonable. Your arguments so far have no changed that opinion.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
Gun ownership does not convey policing authority. These guys were not at their home protecting their lives or their property. They did not witness a crime, nor stop one in progress. Stopping people for questioning under these circumstances seems to be harassment at the least.
They were allowed to open carry. They were allowed to open carry during a citizen's arrest. They did witness a crime. Arbery was caught red-handed in that man's home. He'd also been in that man's home on multiple occasions prior to that. Let's stop playing games & admit Arbery was a criminal and was committing a crime, which set all of this in motion.

At the most, if you can weasel a technicality crime in somewhere, it's unlawful detention. That still doesn't change the fact that when Arbery attacked McMichael and tried to disarm him, it became a life & death struggle, and it's reasonable to believe McMichael feared for his life.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,173
Reaction score
820
Points
113
They were allowed to open carry. They were allowed to open carry during a citizen's arrest. They did witness a crime. Arbery was caught red-handed in that man's home. He'd also been in that man's home on multiple occasions prior to that. Let's stop playing games & admit Arbery was a criminal and was committing a crime, which set all of this in motion.

At the most, if you can weasel a technicality crime in somewhere, it's unlawful detention. That still doesn't change the fact that when Arbery attacked McMichael and tried to disarm him, it became a life & death struggle, and it's reasonable to believe McMichael feared for his life.
How about Arbery feared for his life because a couple of gun toting rednecks were chasing him?

Looks like another Zimmerman case....except we have a video this time. These two douchebags are going down. Vigilante justice shouldn't be allowed.
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
That has to be the lowest possible pretext for one citizen to detain another. Are you comfortable with that?
It's not about Goldteam's comfort level. It's about the law. Are you comfortable convicting McMichael even though he didn't break a law? Is that the society you want to live in, where you can go to prison for life due to public pressure, despite not having broken the law?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
Not so easy. I haven’t researched this in depth, are you allowed as a citizen to detain another on suspicion of trespassing in a home that isn’t yours?
As he has stated multiple times now, Georgia law (and in most states) say that a felony has to have occurred.

But with the evidence available so far, it appears that no felony occurred.

https://bixonlaw.com/georgia-trespassing-101/
"
Penalties
A person who commits trespassing shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or jail time or both. Depending on the circumstance of the case and the kind of trespass violated, the judge might also impose community service and restitution in addition to fine and jail time. Restitution involves returning or fixing the damaged property to the rightful possessor/owner plus payment of any damages suffered by the possessor/owner.
"

CRG is, of course, lying when he talks about burglary. No such thing ever occurred.
 

Goldteam

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
695
Points
113
Thank you for admitting that they voluntarily brought guns to the citizen's arrest, of their own choice.

Your point is valid, ok? That's for the jury to consider and judge.

You can't prove objectively, one way or another, that a gun is a requirement to perform a citizen's arrest. Maybe the jury will agree with you, that it was reasonable for them to bring them. Maybe not.

My opinion is that it was unreasonable. Your arguments so far have no changed that opinion.
Yes, they were allowed to bring guns.

Thank You!

Finally!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
1,146
Points
113
I said nothing of the sort. You seem to giving up all of your rights so that a fishing expedition on private citizens by private citizens can take place at anytime. What did these guys know at the time of the stop?
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Undoubtedly this killing brings to light questions about citizen's arrests. I'm absolutely in favor of looking at changes to the law. What it doesn't change, is that at the time of the shooting, citizens arrest were legal.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,301
Reaction score
2,024
Points
113
No it hasn't, it's done just the opposite. Look at actual data and statistics. Minorities "protected" under affirmative action are not nearly doing as well as groups that are not protected. Instead of lifting groups, it locks them down. I get that you value the emotional response where giving food to a person that's hungry makes you feel better -- the "give a person a fish and they're no longer hungry for a day versus teach a person to fish and they're no longer hungry for life" analogy. You're focused on what makes you feel good, versus what actually does good, which is true for about half the people. Think about it anyways the next time someone asks you an opinion on a policy -- does it do good in the long run?
Even if this is true, which I highly doubt, that doesn't prove that AA laws are the cause.

You haven't heard the phrase "correlation is not causation" ?
 
Top Bottom